' This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 9-6-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby appeal brought by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 16-1-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sialkot was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondents filed a suit for declaration and stated that Mrs. P.D. Singah was owner of suit-land (measuring 2 Kanals and 14 Marlas, Khewat No.142, Khatooni Nos.200-201, Khasra Nos.1005 and 1006 situated in village Uggoki Tehsil and District Sialkot). They further stated that petitioner/defendant obtained two decrees dated 31-3-1972 and 17-7-1975 against Mrs. P.D. Singah. The plaintiffs/respondents averred that aforesaid decrees were illegal and void because Mrs. P.D. Singah had died on 26-11-1955 and petitioner had filed suit against dead person hence decrees could not be passed against her. They stated that Jeorg C Singah alias Sheikh Muhammad Jamil Akhtar son of Mrs. P.D. Singah died on 18-12-1978, therefore, plaintiffs/respondents being legal heirs (son, widow, daughters) of Sheikh Jamil Akthar were owners of suit-land. The petitioner/defendant mentioned in written statement that Pervaiz Ahmad etc. Had filed application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. On 13-11-1986 and they had challenged decree dated 17-7-1975 but the same was dismissed, therefore, suit was not maintainable. He further mentioned that plaintiffs were not related to Mrs. P.D. Singah and that Sheikh Muhammad Jamil Akhtar was also not her son. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit brought by respondents/ plaintiffs vide judgment dated 16-1-2003.
The petitioner filed appeal thereagainst which was dismissed on 9-6-2003. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, suit-land was owned by Mrs. P.D. Singah and petitioner/ defendant obtained decrees dated 31-3-1972 and 17-7-1975 regarding suit-land against her. However, the case of the plaintiffs/ respondents is that she had died on 26-11-1955 and petitioner had filed suit against dead person, therefore, said decrees are void and liable to be set aside. Also that they are legal heirs of Mrs. P.D. Singah and owners of suit-land. Mr. Wamiq Sohail, plaintiff appeared as P.W.1 and stated that Sh. Jamil Akhtar was his father. He further stated that Sh. Jamil Akhtar was son of Mrs. P.D. Singah and she had died on 26-11-1955 whereas Sh. Jamil Akhtar died on 17-12-1978. The plaintiff/ respondent deposed that suit-land was owned by Mrs. P.D. Singah and Ghulam Muhammad, defendant used to cultivate the same as tenant and thereafter he filed suits against Mrs. P.D. Singah and obtained decrees. The plaintiff/respondent clearly stated that Mrs. P.D. Singah had died before institution of said suits and that Ghulam Muhammad had not impleaded them (plaintiffs) as party in the suits. He further deposed that his father was serving in Army and after retirement he had started business and that at the time of birth his name was Jeorg C Singah. The plaintiffs also produced documents Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.9 in support of their version. The plaintiffs produced death certificate of Mrs. P.D. Singah as Exh.P.7 and death certificate of Sh. Jamil Akhtar as Exh.P.8. Nazir Ahmad P.W.2 also supported the version of plaintiffs. The perusal of Exh.P.7 shows that Mrs. P.D. Singah died on 26-11-1955. According to Exh.P.8, Sh. Jamil Akhtar son of P.D. Singah died on 18-12-1978. As such it is clear from the material available on record that petitioner/ defendant had filed suit against Mrs. P.D. Singah after her death. So learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs. The judgment dated 9-6-2003 shows that learned Additional District Judge decided the appeal brought by petitioner after appraisal of entire material available on record. So impugned judgment is just and proper. Learned Additional District Judge while deciding Issue No.11 observed that:- "From the perusal of Exh.P.7 produced by respondents it reveals that Mrs. P.D. Singah Christian in the age of 65 years died on 26-11-1955 Resident of P.1565-A, Muslim High School, Rawalpindi who died with the cyst of abdomen this information was tendered by S.M. Jamil Akhtar on 30-11-1955 who remained sick till 2 months from the perusal of Exh.P.8 it reveals that Sheikh Muhammad Jamil Akhtar whose father was P.D. Singah died on 18-12-1978 Resident of House No.1565-A, Asghar Mall Scheme, Rawalpindi whose death' was reported by Mst. Shamim Akhtar respondent No.2 the mother of respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. These both the documents have been issued by the competent Authority and it is settled that a person can tell lie but documents cannot. From the defendants side no rebuttal to these documents have been advanced. These documents showed the relationship of respondents with Mrs. P.D. Singah and her son Mr. Jamil Akhtar. So far as the service of Mrs. P.D. Singah is concerned in the suit instituted by appellant is out of question firstly she was not in the world as she died on 26-11-1955 moreover, from the perusal of the statement of the appellant D.W.3 reveals that he was a postman and he managed to get prepare the false report on the summons and he fraudulently obtained the decree in 1971 and 1975 against a dead person and it is well-settled that a decree against the dead person is nullity in the eyes of law.
Moreover, the legal heirs of deceased Mrs. P.D. Singah allegedly claimed by appellants has not been produced and no document in this respect have been produced by him and it seems that he only advanced this afterthought story to defeat the valuable right of the respondents,. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this issue was rightly decided by the learned trial Court and needs no interference."
' It is well-reasoned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed application for framing of issues but learned Additional District Judge has not decided the same, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that said application was filed only to delay the case because there was no need to frame any issue as the parties were aware about their case and evidence was available on record.
Admittedly, case remained pending for about seven years and parties have produced evidence in support of their respective versions. As such in the circumstances of the case, there was no need to frame any other issue. It seems that petitioner had filed application only to prolong the case. So contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of force and the same is accordingly repelled. As mentioned above, petitioner had filed suits against dead person, therefore, claim of petitioner is baseless. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Likewise learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, there is no justification to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by Courts below.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.